I retired 1 year ago. Looking back at this, it is hard to comprehend how far we've come. I went through tech school, Avionics 'A' school in Memphis in 1978. Transistors were widely used but we also had to learn about vacuum tubes. There were a few weeks of computer training, involving a large keyboard and a large light panel. As we followed the training, we could see how the op code moved the operands. Later, we trained on systems we were more likely to be using. 50 years ago, there was little in the way of standardization. You could work on one system for 5 years, then transfer to another system and start all over. All the while, every system was getting mods(upgrades). After 20 years in the Navy, I went to UWF(Pensacola) and got a degree in Math and Physics, 2001. I ended up working on a flight simulator for 17 years. It had been built in the early 80s. There were 2 people in the building that had been part of the initial design and implementation.
. .
A note to programmers. You'll probably, no, you will be, employed to maintain legacy software sometime in your life. "What's legacy software?" It costs a lot to design, test and implement software. My experience, old software is not discarded and new software created. Old software is modified until the physical system is retired. The best way to understand what, how and why that is, in encapsulated in the Johnny Cash song, "One Piece at a Time".
. .
"Uh, what model(build) is it?
Well, it's a '49, '50, '51, '52, '53, '54, '55, '56
'57, '58, '59 automobile
It's a '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67
'68, '69, '70 automobile(build)"
. .
By the by, the graphics budget must have been $20 for this video.

I admit this is pretty dry but I'm rather surprised the previous reviewers did not acknowledge any of these mathematicians/computer scientists. Richard Hamming for instance's work (he's the founder of Coding Theory for instance, so it's best not to overlook that fact (it's used everywhere)) is still used everywhere (including the very messages being passed when I click the submit button). I enjoyed the videos but I agree that the content itself is quite dated in terms of context and visualizations. It's honestly a good way to start learning about machines though :). Good basic education film but I recommend it to only somebody who has a great deal of interest prior to.

Penis Man Vs The Machine Of Thought....For Geeks Only!

National Educational Television presents The Computer And The Mind Of Man.
Program I, Logic By Machine.
Producer, Writer, Director: Richard Moore
Artist: Wayne Ensrud
Editor: Irving Saraf
Music: Morton Subotnick
Production Coordinator: Robert Katz
Production Assistant: Patricia Day
Associate Producer: Harvey Langee
Photography: W.A.Palmer Films, Imagination Inc., Irving Saraf, Philip Greene
"We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the following: Ceir, Rucker-Fuller, NASA, Webcor Recorders, Academy of Sciences S.F., Abco"
Produced by KQED, San Francisco for National Educational Television, under a grant from the International Business Machines Corp.

Yes, this is a VERY dry film, and these mathematicians don't exactly light up the screen with star power, but I still found it very worthwhile. Part 2 is especially interesting, as they get into the philosophical and social implications of these new machines, symbolic reality, artificial intelligence, etc.
The animation is cheap but effective, and the music by Morton Subotnick (who was to become an electronic music pioneer) is creepy and sparse.
Recommended for those with the patience for it.

There's all sorts of things happening in this movie. Logic By Machine explains of how computers are making everything easier.While looking at footage of old computers at work is fascinating, Logic By Machines is terribly slowed down by the blowhard mathematicians that pop in from time to time and chime in on mathematical theories involving computers.
Also what I find interesting is IBM's insistence of keeping the animation as sparse as possible, although not made by the Eames (thank goodness!) the style is pretty much the same.
All in all, keep your fast forward button handly.

I would guess that most people found this a dull film in 1965. Perhaps not as many in 2003 due to its historical significance, but few will be moved by what is presented. Still it is a nice peek at computer science and it's history.